BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd v Bluestone Apartments Pty Ltd

In the case of BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd v Bluestone Apartments Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from obtaining certain documents through discovery, asserting legal professional privilege. The communications in question were between the plaintiff’s legal advisors and senior executives of the company, regarding the Project Deed and related agreements. The defendant argued that privilege did not apply and that certain documents should be produced for inspection. The court was tasked with determining whether the communications were privileged and, if so, whether the plaintiff had waived that privilege.

The primary legal issue was whether the communications between the plaintiff’s legal advisors and its senior executives were protected by legal professional privilege. The court considered whether these communications were part of the legal advice continuum, which would entitle them to privilege. The court also needed to determine if the plaintiff's denial of the defendant's allegations constituted a waiver of privilege. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the privilege applied to all communications between the plaintiff’s legal advisors and the senior executives, as well as whether privilege applied to documents forwarded within the plaintiff company by executives.

The court found that legal professional privilege did attach to the documents in question. The communications were part of a continuum aimed at providing and receiving legal advice, and thus, were privileged. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that privilege was waived by the plaintiff’s denial of the allegations. The court held that the mere denial of the allegations did not constitute a waiver of privilege. The court concluded that all documents for which production was sought were privileged and immune from production. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim for privilege was upheld.

The court ordered that legal professional privilege did attach to the documents sought by the defendant, and these documents were immune from production. The court also ruled that the defendant’s submission that privilege had been waived was incorrect. The claim for privilege was upheld, and the court directed the parties to discuss the issue of costs.